City of Marysville v. Freeman
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the Court
found that the defendants own three lots in the plaintiff city; that pursuant to ordinances of the city the defendants were duly notified “to repair and reconstruct” the sidewalk in front of said lots; that they failed and neglected to comply with the notice; that thereafter such proceedings were taken that the superintendent of streets let a contract “for the construction of said sidewalk . . . for the sum of $217.95”; that the contractor constructed the sidewalk in accordance with the contract; and that the plaintiff paid him the agreed price therefor. This action is for the recovery of a…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Federal Construction Co. v. EnsignCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1922
- Barber v. GallowayCalifornia Supreme Court · 1924
- City Street Improvement Co. v. PearsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1919
- Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. v. Reclamation Dist. No. 404California Supreme Court · 1916
- Flinn v. ZerbeCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1919
3Cited by1 opinion
- 612 SOUTH LLC v. Laconic Limited PartnershipCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2010